get_player_id_guide

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It transparently describes that the tool is a guide providing instructions, not an action tool. It discloses the nature of the content (how to get player ID, check identity, handle field names). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one sentence with an emoji and a concise list of topics. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and has no wasted words. Every part adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool is a guide with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what topics are covered and when to use it. No additional information is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it's a usage guide for getting player ID, listing specific topics like retrieving local player ID from connect(), checking identity, and handling field name differences. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are mostly other guides or technical actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use when implementing player identification logic or debugging player-related issues.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention when not to use or alternatives. Given sibling tools are different guides, the guidance is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.